March 20, 2017

Although the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) was founded in 2000, the term "settlement planner" is still viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". Current SSP President Joseph Tombs agrees.

"Until recently," Tombs stated in an S2KM interview, "that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ('Settlement Planner') proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure."

Just as significant, under Tombs' leadership, SSP has made a dramatic policy shift: "to pull back completely from structured settlement politics". Tombs quickly adds, however: "Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members." For example: "[t]he SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs."

The changes in SSP, as well as the growing maturation of settlement planning, were evident during SSP's recent 2017 Annual Conference which occurred March 1-3 in Las Vegas. Perhaps the most provocative statement of change, at least from a structured settlement perspective, was a panel discussion titled "Comprehensive Settlement Planning in a Post Structure-Centric World" featuring Tombs; Jack Meligan; Charly Schell; and Joseph DiGangi.

Each of these panelists has been a settlement planning leader and proponent for many years. Meligan and Schell are former SSP Presidents. DiGangi is the newly-elected SSP Vice-President. As panelists, each offered settlement planning "tips" including:

The SSP conference also included an informative panel discussion about the structured settlement secondary market titled "Bad Practices in the Secondary Market" featuring John Darer, Eddie Stone and moderated by Rhonda Bentzen. The presentation provided a detailed, professional critique, with examples, of false advertising by some primary market participants who sell products consisting of "re-cycled" or "derivative" structured settlement payment rights as "annuities" or "structured settlements" as well as the risks and dangers of such products.

Just as SSP as an association is transitioning, the relative role and importance of structured settlements (from SSP's perspective) is also changing - and this poses a challenge for NSSTA and the structured settlement industry generally. For examples:

Although most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also NSSTA members, according to Tombs, he also maintains that most SSP members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not sell structured settlement annuities.

SSP has developed a new set of "Practice Standards" which it introduced during its 2017 Annual Conference because, according to Tombs, "professionalism requires a set of common standards recognized by those calling themselves settlement planners as well as the consuming public."

Tombs also announced that a committee of the SSP Board will be "modernizing" SSP's existing "Standards of Professional Conduct" because this current ethical code is "too structured settlement centric".

Tombs, as well as other SSP members, believes that settlement planning represents a uniquely superior business model compared with traditional structured settlements. Most structured settlement annuity providers, according to Tombs, "[don't] understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements."

From a plaintiff or plaintiff attorney perspective, Tombs characterizes settlement planners vs. structured settlement brokers as "unfair competition". "My experience has shown," Tombs states, "that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product as a solution for a client's comprehensive needs."

From an historic and strategic perspective, Tombs' message, indeed the message of the SSP 2017 conference more generally, appeared to S2KM to echo and amplify Joseph DiGangi's presentation during the NSSTA 2009 Winter Meeting which DiGangi termed "a wake up call for the [structured settlement] industry". At that time (2009), DiGangi proposed a "consultant" model for NSSTA members, with multiple products and services, as an alternative to the "annuity broker" structured settlement business model.

Significantly, in 2009, DiGangi characterized structured settlement annuities as the "foundation product" for what DiGangi at that time termed "settlement consulting" - and settlement consulting as the new business model for structured settlement growth. For structured settlement consultants who lack the expertise, licensing or infrastructure to offer comprehensive solutions, DiGangi recommended teaming up with other professionals. DiGangi highlighted several transitional issues: licensing; conflicts of interest; collaboration models; and work process infrastructure.

Although NSSTA has not yet formerly embraced "settlement planning", NSSTA has formed a "Special Needs Attorney Task Force" and its 2017 Annual Educational Conference will feature an unprecedented (for NSSTA) number of special needs attorneys as speakers. Special needs attorneys play an increasingly important number of roles in personal injury settlement planning. Ringler, a founding NSSTA member and historically the largest structured settlement broker, recently re-branded itself as "Objective Settlement Advisors" and now claims to be "the largest settlement planning company in the nation."

Among several other interesting and educational SSP presentations (listed below), the following two related discussions were especially important for the future of SSP and settlement planning - again, from S2KM's perspective:

Hansen's presentation was notable for several reasons. First, he acknowledged that "settlement planning" remains an emerging profession that has not yet achieved professional status. Second, he identified four SSP-related steps to elevate settlement planning to professional status: 1) the current re-focus of SSP; 2) updating SSP's (structured-centric) Standards of Professional Conduct; 3) renewing and upgrading the RSP Designation program; 4) adopting and embracing the proposed SSP Practice Standards.

Hansen also reviewed the proposed new SSP Practice Standards, which address the following issues, and which the SSP Board of Directors' Practice Standards Committee has approved and sent to the SSP membership for their input and consideration before the SSP Board meets to discuss, modify and most likely approve the Practice Standards at its upcoming April meeting :

Tombs provided an RSP update which is newly organized and updated within a "Settlement Planning Education Center" (SPEC) website. SPEC, "an online education provider" for the settlement planning profession, is owned and operated by a public charity ("Friends of Settlement Recipients, Inc."), according to Tombs. An RSP Board, Tombs stated, owns and awards the RSP designation and approves, administers and promotes the program. Although the RSP is "independent" of the SSP, according to the SPEC website, SSP helped start RSP and supplied initial funding. The Missions of the RSP and the SSP are "congruent".

The SPEC website provides additional information about the RSP courses and the SPEC faculty and includes a detailed list of Frequently Asked Questions (with Answers) plus multiple "How-To" Videos. The RSP program is entirely online and self-paced. The total cost of the program will be "about $4750" per person. Additional contact information is available on the SPEC website.

February 15, 2017

The United States structured settlement industry has been in existence for more than 40 years and continues to expand its scope, complexity and importance within the context of personal injury settlement planning. The industry consists of both a primary and secondary market and includes "off-shore" funding products. Certain structured settlement products utilizing periodic payments provide tax advantages. With increasing frequency, structured settlement products are being integrated with other financial and insurance products and government benefits into personal injury settlement plans utilizing 468B Qualified Settlement Funds and consisting of settlement trusts, special needs trusts, and Medicare set-aside arrangements.

Since it was first published in 1986, "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" (S2P2J), has provided professionals and other stakeholders involved with structured settlements an authoritative reference guide, consisting of 16 chapters with extensive footnotes and Appendix documents, to help them understand issues and fashion settlements and judgments utilizing periodic payments. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have utilized S2P2J as an educational resource for their certification programs.

Co-authored and updated semi-annually byDaniel W. Hindert, Joseph J. Dehner and Patrick J. Hindert, S2P2J features an online version as well as the traditional hardcopy. Online S2P2J includes a search feature and download capability plus link features to access individual book sections, appendices, footnotes, cases and statutes.

PublisherLaw Journal Press anticipates a March 2017 distribution date for hardcopy supplements for S2P2J Release 61 with online S2P2J subscribers receiving their update simultaneously with no additional subscription charge. Competent professionals confronted by structured settlement issues should have access to an up-to-date copy (or the online version) of this indispensable source book.

Ezell v. Lexington Ins. Co. - Although the Complaint in this class action lawsuit was only recently filed, Release 61summarizes the Complaint and considers the plaintiffs' allegations from the perspective of "the best protection for the defense against the risk of future claims by claimants that they were misled in understanding how the 'cost' was calculated..." S2P2J's recommendation (with sample Appendix documentation): "[D]isclose the material elements of how the agreed amount will be allocated to acquire the funding vehicle and put a long-term obigor in place. Full disclosure of such elements would eliminate any basis for a later claim that a settling claimant was misled when agreeing to a structured settlement."

Special Needs Trust (SNT) Fairness Act - Among NSSTA's strategies for growing the structured settlement market, the importance of special needs (SN) attorneys is receiving greater recognition and priority. With the enactment of the SNT Fairness Act in December 2016, the growth potential for both SNTs and structured settlements has expanded. Prior to December 2016, an injured person who received settlement funds could not create his/her own SNT. Only a parent, grandparent, guardian or court could establish a first party SNT. With this new legislation, persons with disabilities can create their own SNT unless they are mentally or legally incompetent to do so. Release 61 integrates coverage of the SNT Fairness Act into S2P2J's broader coverage of structured settlements and government benefits including Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans Benefits, Federally Assisted Housing, the Affordable Care Act and ABLE Accounts.

Contract Rights - Although a structured settlement results in a contractual obligation to make periodic payments, a party that is released from liability need not become contractually obligated for the future payments. Release 61 summarizes and discusses Nutt v. United States, a 2016 case brought by an ELNY shortfall victim. The case provides an example of how the wording of a structured settlement agreement determines whether a claimant has enforceable rights against a specific defendant, separate from the life insurance company that issued the annuity. The Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's holding finding the language of the 1985 settlement agreement required the United States only to purchase annuities to fund future periodic payments and did not require the Government to make or guarantee the payments.

Off-Shore Companies - The increase in popularity of non-qualified assignments has resulted in efforts by some companies to offer what appear to be qualified assignments funded by companies located outside the United States. They sometimes purchase factoring rights to structured settlement payments and use these rights to offer higher effective interest rates than traditional annuity-financed structured settlements. Sales materials supporting these transactions sometimes maintain that these arrangements offer the same level of benefits and protection as traditional structured settlements. Release 61 expands prior S2P2J discussions of the substantial risks to parties entering into such agreements with offshore companies including risks for the professionals who recommend such transactions.

Settlement Documentation - Once the terms of a structured settlement have been determined, all required closing documents must be drafted in a manner which fulfills each client's financial expectations and protects each client's legal interests. Skill is required to avoid mistakes and to anticipate potential future issues that could impact periodic payments. S2P2J devotes an entire chapter to "case closing" including issues arising after case closing. Release 61 highlights recent cases detailing the consequences of problematic settlement documentation followed by a divorce, bankruptcy, unanticipated death sequences or disputed estates.

ELNY Class Action - Release 61 includes a summary update for a class action (Kelly v. Ringler) brought on behalf of ELNY shortfall victims which remains unresolved after a Federal District Court in Oregon denied dismissal of claims based on negligence and on certain Oregon and Alaskan statutory provisions, while granting dismissal of a claim that defendants had a continuing duty to inform the plaintiffs that their annuity stream from ELNY was threatened because of its declining financial condition. A similar class action against structured settlement broker EPS was settled in 2015. Note: this paragraph was edited on February 16, 2017.

Expanded discussion of "product suitability" and how it impacts structured settlement and settlement planning professionals.

Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act of 2015.

Court decisions analyzing "safe harbor" annuity rules under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when annuities are used to preserve Medicaid eligibility.

New cases where courts have identified questions to help judges determine whether proposed transfers of future payment rights meet the "best interest" test under various state Structured Settlement Protection Acts.

Also Note: all three S2P2J co-authors will appear on the same panel March 2 at the SSP 2017 Annual Conference in Las Vegas to lead a discussion titled "Current Developments in the Structured Settlement Industry."

January 18, 2017

Joe Tombs is currently completing the first year of a two-year term as President of the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP). SSP's 2017 Annual Conference is scheduled for March 1-3 in Las Vegas. As Tombs prepares for this event, he agreed to answer a few S2KM questions about SSP's current status and future direction. In a prior S2KM blog post, Tombs responded to the AIG Class Action Lawsuit - stating SSP is "neutral" and that SSP, as an association, has decided as a matter of policy to abandon taking any “political” positions.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for agreeing to this interview. To further clarify SSP's new "no political positions" policy, you have also stated that SSP is now neutral about single-claimant 468B Qualified Settlement Funds - one of the most contentious issues within the primary structured settlement market during the past several years. Just to confirm, are you saying the SSP, as an association, no longer supports and/or will no longer advocate for single-claimant 468B QSFs?

TOMBS: That is correct. Our refusal to take a position should not be misunderstood to imply anything about our individual members. The SSP has been a zealous advocate of the single-claimant QSF in the past and I doubt any of our members have changed their opinions on the subject. We are not asking our members to suppress or to modify their own beliefs.

S2KM: What about factoring which arguably represents the most divisive political issue within the structured settlement market? If SSP is neutral, how do you explain SSP's current membership policy which to use your own words "is open to anyone interested in comprehensive settlement planning as long as they are not engaged in factoring". Doesn't SSP's membership policy itself represent a "political position"?

TOMBS: The SSP does not have an opinion on factoring. Several years ago, we held a conference in which many participants from factoring companies attended and participated. Their presence at our meeting annoyed some SSP members and a special meeting of members was called to address this issue. At that meeting, the membership voted almost unanimously to close off new membership to those applicants who were active in the factoring industry. We also decided not to expel the very few of our members who had drifted into factoring. Our individual members' views on factoring are varied and generally quite negative, but the reason factoring representatives are excluded from membership centers on the fact that we want to focus on planning at the time of settlement. (Tombs' emphasis). My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a person who ethically engages in factoring, but that the world would be a net better place if factoring did not exist.

S2KM: What do you consider to be your most significant accomplishments during your first term as SSP President?

TOMBS: Recognizing we still have more than six weeks left to achieve first year objectives, I am especially proud of four accomplishments: 1) SSP has substantially expanded its membership; 2) we have re-focused on professional settlement planning as our primary Mission and purpose; 3) we have pretty much put to bed the idea that we oppose the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA); and 4) we have developed a new set of Professional Practice Standards which we will introduce during our 2017 Annual Conference.

S2KM: How large is SSP and where are you finding new members?

TOMBS: I anticipate we will meet our goal of having 300 members by the time of our 2017 Annual Meeting. Many of our new members are trust officers, financial planners, special needs trust attorneys and staff from settlement planning practices. The new face of the SSP is truly the new faces at the SSP and the different perspectives they bring are propelling us forward in an exciting new direction.

TOMBS: I don't think most structured settlement annuity providers understand the significance of settlement planning - or how it differs and/or relates to structured settlements. They are just beginning to wake up to the concept and realize how important and how effective the settlement planning model can be. My experience has shown that whenever a plaintiff attorney sees and understands the settlement planning model, they will never again be satisfied with a structured settlement broker who only offers one product. Think about what happened to flip phone providers when smart phones hit the market. I predict the same thing will happen with settlement planning. If structured settlement annuity providers wait too long to transition, trust companies will have captured first mover advantage.

S2KM: At one time, the term "settlement planner" was viewed by many structured settlement stakeholders as an inflated synonym for "plaintiff broker". How would you differentiate a professional settlement planner from a structured settlement consultant?

TOMBS: Until recently, that view was entirely accurate. A plaintiff broker would simply order new business cards with the new title ("Settlement Planner") proudly displayed. Today, however, that transition creates changes in expectations, applicable standards of care, and required levels of disclosure. A structured settlement consultant approaches an engagement with a product in mind. By comparison, a settlement planner (with access to multiple products) first gathers information about the goals of the injury victims and his/her family, analyzes the data, works out a written plan, and implements the plan. A settlement planner does not play the role of a structured settlement broker, if at all, until the last step.

S2KM: What is a "comprehensive settlement plan" and how does it differ from a "structured settlement"?

TOMBS: A structured settlement is a product. A "comprehensive settlement plan" is a blueprint. It is a written document that contains a summary of the detailed analysis of the client's situation, capacities, goals, priorities, needs, and resources - and the strategies and products that will best help that client use the settlement proceeds to successfully transition into a post-settlement life in a way that allows them to accomplish their highest priority goals. The settlement planner uses the plan to guide the injury victim through the settlement process. Many of my settlement plans do not include structured settlements, but most do.

S2KM: What role(s) do you see for structured settlement annuities in settlement planning?

TOMBS: Structured settlements provide tax-free guaranteed cash flows that can be matched to the exact time that the cash flow is projected to be needed. It is a valuable tool in a settlement planner's toolbox. Carpenters love their hammers, but I would never hire a carpenter who showed up to work with only a hammer.

S2KM: What is SSP's current relationship with NSSTA and what would you like it to be?

TOMBS: Most of the SSP members who produce structured settlements are also members of NSSTA. The SSP's past opposition to a few of NSSTA's political positions has frayed the relationship despite great strides to mend the fences by both sides. Today, the SSP leadership fully supports NSSTA and its Mission to preserve and protect structured settlements. I believe the two organizations are symbiotic - if one does better, so does the other.

S2KM: How are SSP and NSSTA different from SSP's perspective? Do we need two associations or should their efforts be combined?

TOMBS: SSP and NSSTA are two very different organizations with completely different Missions. We share a common ancestry, but we have evolved into separate species. The difference, which is evident in our names, is not subtle, semantic, or political. Today, most of our members, sponsors and seminar attendees do not even sell structured settlement annuities. Let that fact settle in for a minute and you will begin to comprehend the extent to which the SSP and settlement planning have evolved.

S2KM: What is the scope of SSP's new "Professional Practice Standards"? Will they Replace SSP's current "Standards of Professional Conduct"? If not, how are they different?

TOMBS: At our 2017 Annual Meeting, we will announce and release practice standards that will define settlement planning and authoritatively set out the scope of the practice of settlement planning. Don't expect something complicated. SSP's Professional Practice Standards will be simple, profound statements. They will be different from a Code of Ethics or our Code of Professional Conduct. Our current Code of Professional Conduct is too structured settlement centric and is currently under review by an SSP committee. I suspect it will receive major modifications soon.

S2KM: What is the current status of the Registered Settlement Planner (RSP) Program? How many professionals currently possess the RSP designation?

TOMBS: The RSP designation is administered by a separate Board. The number of RSP designees is small - probably just over twenty. The program was dormant for a long time and has now been freshly updated with several students enrolled.

S2KM: Looking ahead to your second term as SSP President, what are SSP's greatest challenges?

TOMBS: We can't grow the number of professional settlement planners fast enough to keep up with market demand. This forces us to focus on two goals - increasing our membership and increasing the professionalism of our craft. We are making progress on both fronts, but we simply cannot go far enough or fast enough to meet the demand. Another great challenge is that we face resistance from entrenched businesses that actively try to slow us down to allow them to catch up.

S2KM: Joe, thank you for taking time to participate in this interview. Congratulations for your progress with SSP and best of luck for another outstanding SSP educational conference March 1-3 in Las Vegas.

June 25, 2016

Fiduciary standards, as they relate to product suitability specifically, and to business practices generally, can be expected to become more significant factors in product sales for the traditional structured settlement market as it continues to expand into, and interact with, the larger, more complex personal injury settlement planning market.

Multiple developments support this prediction. They include the expanding role of fiduciaries as settlement planning stakeholders and decision makers. In that context, fiduciaries most often serve as trustees, but also as guardians, conservators and/or executors.

Any person acting in a fiduciary capacity has an obligation to act in the "best interest" of another party. A fiduciary duty requires a high standard of honesty and full disclosure including any potential conflicts of interests. A fiduciary must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of his or her client.

Regardless of who sells/provides a financial or insurance product to a settlement trust, and what independent duties that product provider might have to a trust beneficiary (i.e. injury victim), the settlement trustee's own fiduciary duties arguably should require the settlement trustee to evaluate specific trust products, trust product providers and their related business conduct utilizing that same fiduciary standard which requires honesty, full disclosure, and best interest.

In personal injury settlement planning, several types of trusts are utilized - any of which may be funded with, or utilized to fund, structured settlements: qualified government bond trusts; reversionary grantor trusts; settlement preservation trusts; special needs trusts including pooled trusts; Medicare set-aside trusts; and IRC 468B Settlement Funds.

As one related result of the expanding use of settlement trusts, a unique settlement trust market is evolving in the United States characterized by:

Specialized knowledge about government benefits required to serve "special needs" beneficiaries and their families.

Willingness to accept corpus amounts less than minimum requirements of traditional corporate trustees.

Professional individual trustees as well as corporate trustees.

To S2KM's knowledge there does not yet exist any national association of settlement trustees. Instead, settlement trustees participate as members, speakers, sponsors and/or exhibitors at various structured settlement, settlement planning and special needs national conferences such as: NSSTA, SSP, NAMSAP, NAELA, ASNP, SN Alliance, Stetson SNT, University of Texas SNT among others.

PFAC Conference

There exist, however, state fiduciary associations the largest of which is the Professional Fiduciary Association of California (PFAC). To learn more about fiduciaries and fiduciary standards, from a structured settlement perspective, S2KM attended the 21st Annual PFAC Conference, which occurred June 1-4, 2016 in Indian Wells, California and featured 74 exhibitors, more than 600 attendees plus four days of speakers and breakout sessions covering a multitude of topics.

PFAC is an affiliate of the National Guardianship Association(NGA). California Court Rules define education and qualification requirements to serve as guardian, conservator or trustee in California. Attorneys and CPAs with current, active licenses to practice in California automatically qualify. To retain their license, professional fiduciaries must also meet continuing education requirements. Approximately 680 professional fiduciaries are currently licensed in California.

Not all professional fiduciaries, of course, work in personal injury settlement planning. In fact, relatively few of the PFAC Conference presentations and/or exhibits were even relevant to structured settlement and/or settlement planning professionals.

Uniform Prudent Investor Act

Perhaps the most important and relevant lessons S2KM learned during the PFAC conference concerned the duties of care and the investment considerations imposed upon trustees by the Uniform Prudent Investor Act (UPIA). Understanding these UPIA trustee duties and investment considerations will almost certainly help structured settlement and settlement planning professionals improve their sales success when personal injury cases include settlement trusts.

The UPIA , which was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) in 1994, has been enacted, with some state-specific modifications, by 44 states and the District of Columbia. In those states, the UPIA, external to the trust document itself, serves as the most important reference defining a trustee's investment responsibilities.

Prior to the UPIA, courts applied the "prudent man rule" when evaluating trustee investment performance. The UPIA, by contrast, adopts "modern portfolio theory" as a different and more appropriate standard for trustees. Compared with the prudent man rule, modern portfolio theory promotes a holistic view of trust assets by focusing on the total return generated by a trust as opposed to viewing a trust's income and principal separately. This newer standard allows for greater investment diversification so long as the risk/reward ratio matches the purposes and terms of the trust instrument.

In his PFAC conference presentation titled "A Trustee's Duty of Care Under the UPIA", Josh Yager addressed how a trustee can demonstrate prudence and good faith, and thereby avoid a lawsuit, by fulfilling six trustee duties required under the UPIA:

Duty to have a plan.

Duty to monitor risk/return.

Duty to diversify.

Duty to pay only fair fees.

Duty to prudently delegate.

Duty to monitor agent's activities.

Yager never mentioned structured settlements or personal injury settlement planning during his discussion. Within the context of his presentation, however, here are some follow-up questions worth considering at future educational conferences:

How should life contingent structured settlements be compared with other investment alternatives when trustees calculate rates of return needed to accomplish trust objectives?

How can structured settlement and settlement planning professionals better anticipate and address trustee risk objections that many structured settlements include too much concentration, as well as a lack of liquidity?

What are "asset classes" - and should structured settlements be promoted/evaluated as a distinct and necessary "asset class" within settlement trusts?

Assuming trustees have a duty to evaluate compensation arrangements related to trust assets, should structured settlement professionals be required to disclose their case-specific compensation, including compensation sharing agreements? To whom? When?

How do "industry standard" four (4%) percent structured settlement commissions compare with commissions and fees charged by other financial product providers? Are these commissions "fair" or "excessive"?

Why was a given structured settlement design and/or settlement professional selected in a specific case? Does he/she possess appropriate licenses and credentials? Is he/she subject to any undisclosed conflicts of interest? Has he/she been the subject of any prior lawsuits or client complaints? Does he/she understand the trustee's duties under the UPIA? Has he/she accomplished what they promised?

What legal options does a trustee have when confronted with a structured settlement or structured settlement consultant that the trustee believes violates a fiduciary standard or duty for a specific settlement trust under the UPIA?

Although not specifically discussed in any of the PFAC presentations S2KM attended, Section 2(c) of the UPIA identifies eight additional factors a trustee should consider when making any investment:

General economic conditions.

The possible effect of inflation or deflation.

The expected tax consequences of investment decisions or strategies.

The role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall trust portfolio.

The expected total return from income and appreciation of capital.

Other resources of the beneficiaries.

Needs for liquidity, regularity of income, and preservation or appreciation of capital; and

An asset’s relationship of special value, if any, to the purposes of the trust or to one or more of the beneficiaries.

When settlement trusts play a role in a personal injury settlement, structured settlement and settlement planning professionals should be prepared to address these factors as part of their sales strategy. Significant for structured settlements, the UPIA's list of investment considerations fails to mention mental or physical disabilities of a trust beneficiary. From a settlement planning perspective, injuries or diseases that create special needs or reduce an individual's normal life expectancy arguably should receive important consideration when a trustee makes investment decisions.

Comparative Business Standards

How do current business standards of structured settlement and settlement planning professionals measure up to the "best interest" standards required of trustees and other fiduciaries? Although various members of both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) are appointed as independent agents representing many of the same structured settlement annuity providers, the two associations address the issue of product suitability differently.

NSSTA, whose members include defense and plaintiff brokers, has adopted a "Statement of Ethics and Professional Responsibility" (Code of Ethics) with "guiding principles" for its members and member organizations. The Preamble provides: "Implicit in the acceptance of this Statement is an obligation to act in a professionally responsible and ethical manner when providing structured settlement services." Although Principle VI directs NSSTA members to:"…comply with all material federal and state laws and regulations applicable to the structured settlement services that are provided", NSSTA's Code of Ethics does not specifically address either fiduciary or product suitability standards.

By comparison with NSSTA, SSP'sMission Statement provides, in relevant part, that "[m]embership is open to all individuals with a genuine interest in the profession of settlement planning." However, "[c]andidates for membership must attest to their .......striving to ensure plans are consummated to a fiduciary standard." (emphasis added). Unlike NSSTA, almost all of SSP's members represent injury victims and their families and attorneys as opposed to defendants and liability insurers. Many SSP members also sell financial products as well as structured settlement annuities.

Plaintiff structured settlement brokers generally, and SSP members more specifically, regularly face direct competition from non-structured settlement financial advisors. Currently some financial advisors (Certified Financial Planners and Investment Advisors) are held to a fiduciary ("best interest") standard while other financial advisors (broker-dealers) provide services under a “suitability standard” which requires only a reasonable belief that any recommended product is suitable for a client.

Consumer protection concerns appear to be favoring broader application of the fiduciary standard. Acting under authority of Dodd-Frank, the SEC submitted a "fiduciary standard" study to Congress in 2011 recommending the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard for investment advisers and broker-dealers when providing investment advice to retail customers. Congress has not yet adopted this uniform standard. More recently the U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a rule requiring fiduciary accountability for all investment advice related to retirement assets.

CONCLUSION

For most of its history, the primary structured settlement market has developed its business standards and practices based upon a "claim management" model which limits the scope of its representatives' duties of care toward injury victims - the ultimate customers for its products. Within the larger "settlement planning" market, which encompasses structured settlements, fiduciaries and other participating professionals are superimposing a more demanding "best interest" duty of care. To successfully compete in the settlement planning market place, therefore, structured settlement professionals need to acquire a better understanding of fiduciary and UPIA duties and requirements - and learn to re-shape their product sales accordingly.

April 16, 2016

Len Blonder is a structured settlement pioneer now beginning an unprecedented third term as President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA). It may seem counterintuitive, therefore, or perhaps wishful thinking, but one could describe NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference, which occurred April 6-8 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida April 6-8, as a "New Beginning."

Following the transformative leadership of Michael Goodman, NSSTA's immediate past President, however, the opportunity for such a new beginning now exists and the 2016 NSSTA Annual Conference Educational Program outlined some of the future possibilities.

During Goodman's Presidency, NSSTA revised its historic and defensive "protect and preserve" strategy by embracing a new "Growth Initiative" which already appears to have generated new energy and improved "community" spirit. Progress reports for preliminary "Growth Initiative" priorities [re-starting P&C programs; convertible lump sums; and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) amendment(s)] were all positive. Equally important, the overall theme was forward looking asking: "How can we move forward? How can we change the dialogue?"

Supporting its "Growth Initiative", NSSTA has also expanded its industry outreach and networking with other professional associations. Improved relationships among NSSTA, the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) has helped unify the structured settlement market. Working together, NSSTA and NASP have added important consumer protection provisions to five state structured settlement protection statutes. As one result, Goodman declared in his Opening Remarks: "we can no longer use factoring as an excuse for not growing the industry."

Len Blonder Presidency

How will Blonder, a 38 year plus industry veteran who, as much as any single individual, has been personally responsible for "protecting and preserving" the tax foundation for structured settlements, respond to NSSTA's current leadership challenges and market opportunities?

"The times are changing and we must change", Blonder stated, as he addressed NSSTA's membership to begin his third term as President. "The business is more complicated. We must determine how the parts fit together. Despite plaintiff growth, defendants remain indispensable to structured settlements. Defendants must continue to play a key role."

Unless NSSTA faces an unexpected crisis, Blonder said his plans for NSSTA include continued industry and community growth. Based upon the preliminary success of the "Growth Initiative", Blonder announced it would become a permanent NSSTA committee and expand its current list of priorities. As a result of recent state legislative successes, Blonder stated he expects NSSTA to spend less time on factoring legislation and more time on judicial education during his term as president.

Among NSSTA's challenges and priorities, Blonder highlighted: growing NSSTA's membership and increasing membership diversity; continuing to improve relationships with outside associations; and improving public relations generally for both NSSTA and structured settlements.

Re-starting P&C Programs

Speaking as part of a panel discussing Property and Casualty Company Program Growth, Richard Woollams, President of Claims for AIG Commercial Insurance, provided a contrarian perspective concerning future structured settlement growth and industry change. Asked to predict what the structured settlement market will look like in five years, Woollams opined: "the same as today with more broker consolidation and better technology."

Woollams also identified reasons why some P&C companies have reduced their structured settlement program participation: "competing priorities; increasing compliance requirements; and inertia". Woollams further challenged NSSTA's membership by stating: "in workers compensation cases, the savings for defendants is obvious. Can you quantify the cost savings with liability cases? Even a couple of points pays for program compliance and administration."

Woollams' challenge concerning "cost savings for liability cases" echoes findings about "metrics and analytics" from a 2011 study (titled: "National Litigation Management Study") commissioned by the Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance (formerly "the Council on Litigation Management") as well as NSSTA's own 2014 survey of Senior Claim Advisors conducted by CLM Advisors.

Based upon interviews with leading litigation management executives, the 2011 CLM Alliance study identified structured settlement as the "most penetrated external initiative" among 30 litigation-related service areas analyzed. Another "key finding" that emerged from the answers to the more than 160 questions covered in that 2011 CLM Alliance study: "litigation executives are not happy with the metrics and analytics available to them."

Only 20 percent of the participants reported having any set of objectives around the use of structured settlements.

A majority of the participants did not measure referral volume and only half measure the volume of successfully written structures.

Affordable Care Act

A separate NSSTA conference panel discussion about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) titled "Projecting Future Economic Damages After the ACA and Collateral Source Rule Changes" highlighted one way NSSTA members can utilize structured settlements to quantify potential cost savings for defendants. That being part of an expert team that provides defendants with two-tier (with and without ACA coverage) case specific calculations of future economic damages.

As NSSTA's ACA panel pointed out, the admissibility of ACA coverage for trial purposes (both for evidence and damage calculation) depends upon the common law collateral source rule which not only varies by state, but also is subject to current, state-specific post-ACA legal disputes as to applicability. This contested claims environment, plus the applicable expert damage team recommended by the NSSTA panel (featuring a structured settlement broker), represents both a strategic growth opportunity for NSSTA members as well as a priority for continued in-depth education.

Trusts and Structured Settlements

The NSSTA conference panel discussing "Trusts and Structured Settlements" provided another window for viewing potential structured settlement change and growth. Contrary of traditional structured settlement perspectives, which view trusts as competitive products in a zero sum settlement game, panelist Tim Denehy (who identified himself as a "settlement planner" offering trusts and structured settlement annuities) insisted: "A structured settlement does not solve every problem. However, by offering additional products, I can sell more structures."

NSSTA has been slow to explore and/or embrace the evolving settlement planning profession in which structured settlement annuities, as well as trusts, represent strategic, interactive products. Other professional associations, especially SSP and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), have been more proactive than NSSTA in analyzing settlement planning issues. As more plaintiff brokers offer trusts and other non-structured settlement products, and share commissions with defense brokers, NSSTA should consider helping its members better understand how settlement planning impacts the sale of structured settlements - creating new opportunities as well as risks.

Structuring Wrongful Imprisonment Claims

John McCulloch and Ryan Jandreau traced the history and explained the significance of IRC 139F which was enacted December 21, 2015 as part of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). "In the case of any wrongfully incarcerated individual," IRC section 139F provides: "gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal matter) relating to the incarceration of such individual for the covered offense for which the individual was convicted." Damages paid for wrongful imprisonment, however, which are not derived from a personal, physical injury, are not eligible for an IRC section 130 qualified assignment. Although the exact number of exonerees is not known, McCulloch and Jandreau cited sources estimating approximately 4000 nationally over the past 15 years.

NSSTA DIRECTORS AND AWARD WINNERS - NSSTA announced the election of two Directors: Mal Deener and Ryan Jandreau. In addition, the following individuals were honored during the conference:

President's Award - Debbie Sink

Leadership Award - Susan Clark and Robert Caples

Service to the Industry Award - Andrew McClain

CONCLUSION

Assuming NSSTA's 2016 Annual Conference represents a "New Beginning" for the structured settlement industry, the upcoming year will be one of the most important, if not the most important, in NSSTA's history. Based upon his leadership experience and prior accomplishments, Len Blonder appears uniquely qualified to help NSSTA determine how the parts of an increasingly complicated business fit together in order to continue to grow structured settlement annuity sales and improve the lives of personal injury victims.

CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS

S2KM began receiving valuable feedback to this blog post almost immediately following its publication. Examples:

The second paragraph under "Trusts and Structured Settlements" above has been changed from what originally appeared in this blog post, at the request of Phillip Krause, to clarify that he used the word "investment" and not the word "professional." Krause explained: "An 'investment fiduciary' is a specific role within the management of a Trust. The Trustee delegates or directs investment decisions to the 'investment fiduciary.' The role of 'investment fiduciary,' is separate from the role of a 'structured settlement consultant.' An investment fiduciary uses registered investments with the SEC/FINRA. A broker dealer may also be involved in the approval of the appropriateness of investments held within the Trust. The oversight by an OSJ or compliance officer is also common."

S2KM could (still might) write an entire blog post about the informative "Property & Casualty Insurance Program Growth" discussion moderated by Michael Goodman and Len Blonder and featuring Richard Woollams and David Crowe. Some of Woollams' comments appear in the original blog post. Crowe also offered valuable insights and recommendations for re-starting P&C structured settlement programs including the importance of: 1) identifyinging one or more internal structured settlement "champions"; 2) showing the impact on a P&C's bottom line; 3) defense and plaintiff brokers working together for a more efficient settlement process; 4) attracting bright young professionals to the structured settlement industry - a problem, he stated, is shared more generally by the insurance industry.

April 04, 2016

As the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) prepares for its 2016 Annual Meeting this week in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, the primary structured settlement market faces many challenges - perhaps none greater than succession. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s?

One of several NSSTA strategies for attracting and educating "Next Generation" structured settlement participants is NSSTA's Structures 202 conference. Structures 202 targets new industry participants providing attendees a day and one half program explaining case management fundamentals and identifying business development opportunities. It replaces and expands NSSTA's previous Structures 101 program which was directed more narrowly toward structured settlement case analysts and administrators.

To provide one attendee's perspective on structured settlements plus his evaluation of NSSTA's Structures 202 conference, S2KM interviewed Patrick Williams. Williams does not currently work in the structured settlement industry and Structures 202 was his first-ever structured settlement conference.

S2KM: Thank you, Patrick, for agreeing to participate in this interview. How and when did you first learn about structured settlements?

WILLIAMS: I first heard about structured settlements through Cincinnati attorney Joe Dehner. Joe, who co-authors "Structured Settlements and Periodic Payment Judgments" and is also my soon-to-be father in law, knew I was working toward getting my Texas All-Lines adjuster license. He described the industry to me and explained the benefits to the various parties.

S2KM: What first interested you about a possible career in structured settlements?

WILLIAMS: What most attracted me to structured settlements was the overwhelming benefit to injury victims. We all hear financial horror stories about lottery winners and pro-athletes, as well as injury victims, who receive lump sums of money and are broke in just a handful of years. Feeling good about what I do is paramount to the type of person I was raised to be. Structured settlements seemingly is a win-win for both client and broker.

S2KM: How did you learn about the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the NSSTA Structures 202 Conference?

WILLIAMS: During my preliminary structured settlement research, I learned about NSSTA. Structures 202 seemed like the right place to begin more detailed education.

S2KM: What preparation or study, if any, did you engage in to prepare yourself for the NSSTA Conference?

WILLIAMS: I primarily continued to study my adjuster study materials, as I thought having a good basis of knowledge in claims and claims management would be beneficial to anything I might learn at the conference. I also reviewed resources I found via "Google" searches.

S2KM: Were you initially confused by the existence of a primary and secondary structured settlement market?

WILLIAMS: The idea of the secondary market was actually something I was more familiar with at first than the primary market - due to JG Wentworth's aggressive ad campaigns.

S2KM: What were your objectives in attending the NSSTA Conference?

WILLIAMS: I wanted to more fully understand the history and function of periodic payments. In that respect, Toni Warbington provided the best introductory information of the seminar in my opinion. Some of the other presentations contained information that I feel would be more beneficial if I had more experience in the industry at the time of my attendence. I also wanted to identify different qualifications and certifications that might make me a more attractive candidate for structured settlement brokering.

S2KM: Did you accomplish those objectives?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I believe I established a good base of knowledge on how the industry operates. I also gathered information on different backgrounds some of the attendees had prior to getting involved in the industry.

S2KM: What, if anything, surprised you most about the NSSTA Conference?

WILLIAMS: What surprised me most about the conference was the number of attendees who had only one year of less in the industry. It was very comforting to know the structured settlement industry appears to embrace a "youth movement" of sorts.

S2KM: What was the most important information you learned about structured settlements at the NSSTA Conference - as far as:

Case management fundamentals?WILLIAMS: Identifying the type of claimant you are working with seems the most crucial. There appears to be a variety of ways to help a claimant depending on whether he/she is mentally incompetent or a minor who is not qualified to directly receive settlement funds.

Business development opportunities?WILLIAMS: The rising importance of technology. Specifically, the implementation and usage of CRM technology for brokers.

Career opportunities?WILLIAMS: Going into the conference I was already aware of the opportunities of working as an approved broker for either a defendant or plaintiff attorney. However, I was unaware that career opportunities might also exist with a life company or an assignment company.

S2KM: Did the NSSTA Conference increase or decrease your career interest in structured settlements?

WILLIAMS: It definitely furthered my interest. The mix of experience and youth in "202" made for a very comfortable environment. The conference also provided me with the base knowledge that I was seeking. The inside look into the industry gave me insight into how the industry works.

S2KM: Does the structured settlement market appear to offer attractive career opportunities for someone like yourself? Why or why not?

WILLIAMS: As someone interested in the fields of claim management and adjustment, structured settlements naturally interests me. The cross-over from claims adjustment was very apparent during the "202" seminars. Structured settlements appears to provide a rewarding career as well as a valuable service.

S2KM: What appear to be the most difficult challenges for someone like yourself thinking about entering the structured settlement market?

WILLIAMS: The most difficult challenge appears to be the lack of introductory knowledge available. There is not really a set education or training course available specifically for people like me who are interested in learning about structured settlements. Other career alternatives provide better introductory educational opportunities.

S2KM: What skill sets do you believe are important for achieving career success in the structured settlement market?

WILLIAMS: Without being directly involved in the industry, my perspective is limited to what I saw in the conference. However, with the insight I acquired during the "202" conference, I would say that a strong background in sales, claims, finance, and legal matters would be very helpful.

S2KM: What structured settlement sub-markets, if any, most interest you?

WILLIAMS: Probably non-qualified structured settlements. The potential for structuring claims other than physical, personal injuries appears to have a lot of potential.

S2KM: How do you intend to follow-up your NSSTA Conference experience?

WILLIAMS: I would like to attend more NSSTA conferences and identify employment opportunities within the structured settlement market.

February 29, 2016

Hosted earlier this month in Las Vegas for the second consecutive year by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association(NSSTA), the Structures 202 conference represents an important addition to NSSTA's growing educational curriculum and also provides valuable strategic insights into some of the challenges and opportunities currently facing the structured settlement industry.

Primarily targeting "Next Generation" structured settlement participants, Structures 202 offers attendees a day and one half program explaining case management fundamentals and identifying business development opportunities. This educational offering replaces and expands upon NSSTA's previous Structures 101 program which was directed more narrowly toward structured settlement case analysts and administrators.

Former NSSTA Presidents and current NSSTA Directors Mal Deener and Len Blonder also spoke this year about the history of NSSTA and the structured settlement industry. Blonder is scheduled to become NSSTA President for the third time when he succeeds current NSSTA President Michael Goodman in May during the NSSTA 2016 Annual Meeting.

S2KM Comments and Recommendations

Strategic Context for Structures 202

Growth Initiative - From a strategic perspective, NSSTA's expanded educational program generally, and its Structures 202 program more specifically, can be viewed, and should be considered, as complementary to NSSTA's current "Growth Initiative" - as described in S2KM's review of the NSSTA 2015 Fall Conference. One way to measure growth is annual structured settlement annuity premium - which increased approximately 2% in 2015. Other possible growth measurements: annual increases in NSSTA membership and/or attendance at NSSTA conferences including Structures 202. Approximately 110 NSSTA members attended the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, including approximately 40 life company representatives and 60 broker representatives - compared with approximately 150 attendees in 2015.

"From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve."

"Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"

"A lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."

"Nepotism works in the structured settlement industry."

Industry Unity -During 2015, the leaders of NSSTA, the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) expanded their shared educational dialogue. NSSTA and NASP announced a collaborative legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes. During the 2016 Structures 202 Conference, NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn reported continuing state legislative progress in Florida, among other states. These actions help mitigate the historic acrimony which has divided plaintiff and defense structured settlement brokers, as well as the primary and secondary markets, and also has arguably hurt the structured settlement industry and limited primary market growth.

Special Needs and Personal Injury Settlement Planning - Despite its strong public commitment to persons with disabilities, NSSTA has never fully committed itself to analyzing and/or marketing its structured settlement annuity product within the larger and more complex special needs planning and personal injury settlement planning markets. Among other results, and despite shared interests, limited collaborative membership and/or educational/lobbying interaction currently exists between NSSTA and professional associations such as the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), the Special Needs Alliance (SNA), the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP), the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals (NAMSAP) or the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners (AANLCP).

Case Management Curriculum

With two exceptions, all of this year's Case Management presentations repeated presentations made at the inaugural 2015 NSSTA Structures 202 Conference - although some of the speakers were different. The two exceptions: 1) the Medical Underwriting presentation was new; 2) the Structured Settlement Protection Act Update replaced last year's Structured Settlement Litigation and Factoring Issues.

Overall, these presentations were excellent and represent NSSTA and structured settlement industry core competencies and best practices. The issues for NSSTA are: 1) whether repeating core elements of Structures 202 will attract new and/or repeat attendees - especially given NSSTA's decision to prospectively feature some Structures 202 presentations on its website; 2) what additional case management fundamentals, if any, should Structures 202 address; and/or 3) should NSSTA rotate and spend more time on fewer issues annually. For example, although the Group Exercise (Review and Fixing Settlement Documents) represented an excellent program feature it would have benefited from more allocated time.

Additional observations: the selected case management topics 1) omitted key issues that would interest "Next Generation" structured settlement participants such as "needs analysis" and factoring; 2) were not presented sequentially as they actually occur in case management; and 3) could be improved from a learning perspective with the addition of one or more visual maps - process maps, concept maps, etc.

Business Development Curriculum

Structures 202 evolved from Structures 101 which focused exclusively on case management issues. As one result, the Structures 202 Business Development presentations are less well-defined and/or developed.

To date, for example, NSSTA's Structures 202 Business Development curriculum has not provided "New Generation" attendees with any overview of the current or potential structured settlement market.

Otherwise, assuming NSSTA: 1) continues to repeat annually core elements of its Structures 202 curriculum; and 2) continues to restrict attendance to current NSSTA members; Structures 202 will likely (inevitably) have a declining audience - unless NSSTA has an alternative or complementary strategy for increasing its membership.

As one alternative, NSSTA could simply open Structures 202 to non-NSSTA members (targeting, for example: financial planners, special needs attorneys, life care planners; annuity providers; trust companies) who, if sufficiently interested, could then apply for NSSTA membership. One negative political consideration for NSSTA with open attendance might be an anticipated and unwanted flood of secondary market attendees.

As an alternative, NSSTA could open Structures 202 attendance selectively to members of other specific professional associations whose members engage in personal injury settlement planning - and/or invite those professional associations to serve as one-time co-sponsors. Among the advantages of this alternative: it would encourage NSSTA and the Structures 202 program to analyze how structured settlement professionals and their work product increasingly interact with other settlement planning professionals and their work product. Two of this year's Structures 202 Business Development presentations ("Working with Financial Planners" and "MSA Professional Administration") addressed these types of evolving professional interaction issues and opportunities.

During various stages of its history NSSTA has selectively "vetted" various types of professionals and product providers, thereby preventing them from joining NSSTA and/or attending its educational programs. Opening Structures 202 attendance to a broader audience could help NSSTA diversify its institutional thinking as well as expand the structured settlement market.

For S2KM reports of prior educational conferences sponsored by NSSTA and other professional associations whose members participate in personal injury settlement planning, see the structured settlement wiki .

February 16, 2016

Perhaps less well known nationally than the Stetson Law SchoolSpecial Needs Trust (SNT) Conference, the annual SNT conference presented by the University of Texas (UT) Law School represents a unique and complementary program that more structured settlement and personal injury settlement planning professionals should consider as an educational priority.

Attended by attorneys, financial advisors, trust officers, government agency representatives and care managers, the 12th Annual UT SNT program not only offered an outstanding faculty and comprehensive resource materials, it also integrated federal and Texas state-specific considerations (laws; regulations; current issues and trends; case examples; strategies; best practices) into a detailed learning mosaic that other national (non-state specific) special needs programs are unable to replicate.

Even for attendees venued outside of Texas, however, this integrated federal/state educational perspective provided a valuable analysis of the challenges and alternatives created by the interaction of the multiple sources of ever-changing special needs laws and regulations which sometimes conflict and often are subject to inconsistent administrative rulings.

Kudos to conference co-chairs, Patricia Sitchler and Renee Lovelace, as well as the entire conference faculty. Given the complicated scope and objectives of the UT SNT program, the resulting synthesis could easily have resulted in confusion. Instead, the 12th annual UT SNT conference served both as an excellent updated guidebook for Texas special needs professionals and as a potential model for other state special needs educational institutions and practitioners.

UT SNT Conference Resources - As stated above, the conference handout materials (1481 pages of conference-specific legal papers and power points, plus sample forms, drafting tips, and other resources) provide valuable and recommended reference and learning resources. These materials are available for purchase in multiple formats on the UT CLE website.

SNT Professional Education Resources - The number and quality of educational resources available for special needs professionals continues to increase and improve. In addition to the UT SNT conference, S2KM has attended and reviewed the most recent related conferences sponsored by Stetson, the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA ) and the Academy of Special Needs Planners (ASNP ). ASNP has also sponsored a series of special needs planning webinars. Hal Wright's book: "The Complete Guide to Creating a Special Needs Life Care Plan" represents another valuable resource. Wright, a certified financial planner who focused much of his career on special needs clients, recommends and explains "a comprehensive approach integrating life, resource, financial, and legal planning to ensure a brighter future for a person with a disability."

Personal Injury Settlement Planning - As S2KM has discussed in numerous blog posts (example), personal injury settlement planning represents a strategic, underdeveloped market for both structured settlement and special needs professionals. UT SNT Conference co-Chair Patricia Sitchler's presentation in Austin (see above) highlighted these opportunities for SNT attorneys. Both the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) have taken recent steps to expand their collaboration with special needs attorneys. NSSTA has appointed a Special Needs Trust Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorneys and also featured Sitchler as a speaker at NSSTA's 2015 Fall Conference. SSP's 2016 Annual Conference (March 10-12 in Tucson, Arizona) will include a joint session and social event with ASNP which recently hosted its own settlement planning webinar series.

Supported Decision-Making - Effective Sept. 1, 2015,Texas became the first state to recognize supported decision-making agreements as a less restrictive alternative to guardianship. As defined under Texas' new law, a supported decision-making agreement is an alternative to guardianship for an adult with a disability who may need assistance with making decisions regarding daily living but is not so incapacitated that he or she needs a guardianship. As explained by Tresi Moore Weeks and Renee Lovelace in their UT conference presentation (see above) and accompanying paper, the supported decision-making process "is an outgrowth ofperson-centered planning" which in turn "is based on the belief that people with disabilities are people first, with their own gifts and contributions. A person-centered plan develops a life plan for the future by focusing on the individual’s preferences and capacities. It provides supports to the individual while giving the individual as much self determination and independence as he or she wants and is able to take on." Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was adopted by the U.N. in 2006 and signed (but not yet ratified) by the United States and signed or ratified by 159 other countries, requires states to "take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity."

New SSA Trust Review Procedures - As S2KM has previously reported (see: ASNP 2015 Annual Conference and the Stetson 2015 SNT Conference ), the process by which the Social Security Administration (SSA) reviews SNTs has changed dramatically during the past two years as the result of meetings between SSA representatives and advocates who deal with SNT issues. The UT 2016 SNT Conference featured two complementary video presentations explaining the background, processes, status and impact of these changes: 1) Pi-Yi Mayo moderated a discussion with SSA representatives Amanda Flood and Dana Marquez; 2) Neal Winston explained why the problems with inconsistent, erroneous, or vaguely defined SSA SNT decisions occur; reviewed sources of SSA SNT written policy; discussed current SSA SNT policy trends; detailed the new centralized SSA SNT review procedure; and recommended current best practices for communicating with the SSA about SNTs. Both presentations were supported by excellent papers.

The Texas ABLE Act - Stephen Dale and Chris Masey reported on the Texas ABLE Act under which eligible individuals with disabilities could start an ABLE account, modeled after current Section 529 savings accounts. For additional ABLE Act background, see this S2KM blog post. Their presentations summarized proposed, related IRS regulations as well as new POMS, issued December 21, 2015, in which the SSA explains ABLE accounts and provides instructions for developing and documenting account balances and distributions. In addition, Dale and Masey identified and addressed multiple practical ABLE-related issues to help attendees educate and advise their special needs clients and communities how best and when to utilize this new disability funding option.

November 20, 2015

Patricia LaBorde, President of the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP), opened her association's 2015 Annual Conference last week in Las Vegas with a provocative description of its prior 12 months: "a year of unimaginable successes and challenges".

Founded in 2004, NASP identifies itself as "a leader in setting standards and implementing best practices for the structured settlement purchasing industry. Our association safeguards the rights of settlement recipients to readily access their funds through an efficient, fair and transparent judicial process."

NASP Presidential Panel

Subsequent conference presentations detailed NASP's successes and challenges including an historic President's Panel, moderated by Robin Shapiro, and featuring LaBorde and Michael Goodman, the first sitting President of the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) to attend a NASP conference.

Goodman has identified "growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry" as his number one goal as NSSTA President. He also characterized his remarks and opinions as personal and not representative of official NSSTA policy or positions.

Goodman highlighted the need for "responsible factoring" and mentioned the consumer protections that have been put in place in Wisconsin, Maryland and Illinois. Based upon his own professional experience, Goodman gave multiple examples of what he considered appropriate and inappropriate transfer activities.

Among Goodman's other noteworthy comments:

"Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for the secondary market is not necessarily good for the primary market."

"Both NSSTA and NASP need to improve/correct the branding of "structured settlements". Confusing the primary and secondary markets is not beneficial for either association."

"I am proud we have been able to create more consumer protections for injured annuitants. I am hopeful that by the end of this year, we will have improved the Structured Settlement Protections Acts (SSPAs) in five states.”

Both LaBorde and Goodman acknowledged business practices within their own markets that have created problems for the structured settlement brand. Some of the worst of the secondary market business practices were publicized nationally in an August 25, 2015 Washington Post front page article (featuring a non-NASP company) which more than one industry observer called "a perfect storm" for the factoring industry.

Legislative Collaboration

Even before the Washington Post article, however, and as a direct result of the 2013 Brenston case, which temporarily shut down the secondary market in Illinois, NASP and NSSTA initiated a proactive and collaborative legislative strategy to add five consumer protection amendments to targeted state structured settlement protection statutes:

No forum shopping.

Payee required to attend hearing.

Stricter application of approval requirements.

Advanced notice of transfer.

Required disclosure of prior transfers.

The first success of NSSTA and NASP's legislative collaboration resulted in amendments to the Illinois statute. The Brentson case propelled the two organizations to negotiate and work a compromise that improved the Illinois SSPA. From the perspective of LaBorde and NASP, the result in Illinois represented "the biggest victory since the Model Act".

To memorialize the success in Illinois, NASP honored Illinois State Representative Michael Zalewski as recipient of its 2015 Alexander Hamilton Award. Representative Zaleweski, who sponsored the new Illinois structured settlement legislation, praised its "clarity and protection" compared with the "ambiguity" of the prior law.

NASP has bestowed its Alexander Hamilton Award eight times "to distinguished individuals who have supported and defended the right to free alienability of property rights." NASP considers this right to be its own cornerstone and the foundation of the structured settlement factoring business.

Further highlighting the success of NSSTA and NASP's legislative collaboration, LaBorde and Goodman jointly announced that Governor Scott Walker had signed, just prior to their panel discussion, Wisconsin's first Structured Settlement Protection Act - thereby becoming the 49th state (all except New Hampshire) to have enacted such protective legislation.

During his Legislative and Regulatory Update, NASP lobbyist Jack Kelly, who serves as point person for the NSSTA / NASP collaborative state legislative strategy, provided additional details concerning both the political aftermath of the Washington Post article and the collaborative state legislative strategy.

Without dismissing the negative public relations impact of the Post article, Kelly does not see any immediate Congressional threat despite letters making headlines. "NASP's primary federal concern is the tax bill," Kelly stated, "and it's not on the calendar."

As for state legislation, "good planning has made the difference", according to Kelly. He spoke about "mutual respect" for NSSTA and identified Florida, Maryland and Virginia among priority states for joint future lobbying to improve consumer protection.

Nesbitt allocated significant time to In re: Rains, a Texas case in which the appellate court determined the trial court: 1) could not force MetLife into a contract with the transfer company, directly or indirectly, by imposing a servicing arrangement on account of the Texas statutory "no-split" provision; and 2) abused its discretion in approving the transfer citing a "severe discount rate" among other factors.

The Rains case featured an extensive "best interest" analysis establishing a new judicial precedent in Texas. This analysis requires a judge to consider a "penumbra" of information including "future yet foreseeable liabilities; domestic, economic, physical, medical and educational needs of payee and dependents." Also at issue: how much and what type of evidence is required to place into the court record to justify a transfer.

Matt Bracy reprised his role as moderator of NASP's popular Judicial Panel - this year featuring Judges Daniel Buckley (California); Laura Inveen (Washington); and Jeremy Warren (Texas). The two hour program included questions to and from the judges addressing such transfer topics as:

Interpreting the best interest standard;

Common mistakes at transfer hearings by attorneys, factoring companies and sellers;

How to best present a transfer;

How judges consider objections to transfers;

What documentation judges want to see at transfer hearings;

How to best protect the seller's privacy;

Information judges are not seeing presented that should be;

Significance of the origin (type of personal injury) to the judge's analysis;

Impact of prior transfers on assessments.

Two separate NASP presentations addressed unprecedented and changing perspectives of risk. Discussing Privacy Issues in Structured Settlement Transfers, Shawn Tuma spoke about risks due to cyber attacks. Citing the FBI, Tuma divided corporate America into two company types: those that have been hacked and those that will be - including many that have but don't realize it.

Health records, according to Tuma, are more valuable than financial records because they are rarely modified. Regardless of how you obtain health information, Tuma emphasized, you are obligated to protect it. These obligations include: stewardship, legal and public relations.

Tuma reported that both the SEC and the FTC have developed legal requirements that encompass prevention, detection, response, training, and third party access - and companies cannot insulate officers and directors from personal liability for related damages.

The lessons to be learned, according to Tuma: 1) document a record of compliance; 2) you will be breached; 3) Its not the breach, its your diligence, that matters most. Steven Fox supplemented Tuma's presentation with a discussion of ID Theft and Domicile Determination.

As secondary market transfers have expanded to include life contingent annuity components, mortality underwriting has become a critical skill set. Michael Fasano focused his presentation about Mortality Review / Process in Life Contingent Underwriting on unhedged life contingent secondary market structured settlement transactions.

Fasano emphasized that traditional medical underwriting practices utilized for life settlements or normal life insurance and/or annuities won't work for this class of individuals. Reasons include a high frequency of:

November 07, 2015

Although the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) did not promote a specific theme for its 2015 Fall Educational Conference, one of the speakers succinctly captured the program's overall purpose and accomplishment when he described NSSTA's new Industry Growth Initiative as "changing the focus of our future."

Industry Growth Initiative

NSSTA'swebsitedescription of its Industry Growth Initiative highlights "a significant decline in production since its peak at $6.3 Billion in 2008" and asserts "we do an excellent job protecting our industry" before announcing that "this year we want all NSSTA members to focus their time, energy and resources on new opportunities to expand the use of structured settlements-to grow our industry."

NSSTA President Michael Goodman utilized his Opening Conference Comments in Phoenix (as well as a preconference interview with S2KM) to describe the status and organizational structure of the NSSTA Industry Growth Initiative.

"My first priority as President of NSSTA," Goodman stated, "is to identify growth opportunities for the structured settlement industry.First, we asked all NSSTA members to submit ideas for growth at Growth@NSSTA.com. . Second, I tried to put together a NSSTA Growth Committee consisting of a highly talented cross section of industry leaders with diverse perspectives. Third, the Committee evaluated all of the 28 (to date) NSSTA member growth proposals and selected three for NSSTA Board of Directors approval to develop immediate implementation plans with success metrics."

Goodman introduced the NSSTA Growth Committee members including co-Chairmen William Goodman, Sean Coleman, John McCulloch and John Arendt. Speaking for the Committee, Coleman enthused: "I love our change of focus. Historically, NSSTA has been reactive, dodging bullets. The Growth Initiative redirects our mindset and focus. It encourages us to become proactive. The Growth Committee has already surpassed by highest expectations."

Goodman and the Committee co-Chairmen identified the following three NSSTA Growth Initiatives already selected and approved:

Rejuvenate Defense Programs (including casualty insurers, commercial insureds and TPAs) - Originally the prime movers for structured settlements, many defense insurers have reduced or completely abandoned their structured settlement programs citing a variety of reasons. Beginning with three target carriers, the Committee plans to analyze the causes, and ultimately revitalize the programs, to create new prototype defense program models. Note: NSSTA recently commissioned surveys of Senior Claims Executives; and front line Claims Professionals which S2KM summarized and evaluated in prior blog posts.

Amend the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) - FECA, which provides workers compensation like benefits for federal workers, currently does not permit structured settlements. With payouts totally approximately $4.5 billion per year, FECA represent an attractive potential market for structured settlements with administrative cost savings being one justification for a legislative amendment. Based upon preliminary interviews, the Growth Committee believes FECA stakeholders view structured settlements favorably. The Committee is gathering statistical data to support its proposal and building grassroots support.

Convertible Deferred Lump Sums - As a sales response to "low interest rates", the Growth Committee is proposing a new structured settlement feature. As envisioned, the convertible deferred lump sum would allow a structured settlement recipient to select a future lump sum that would automatically convert on its payment date into a series of predetermined periodic payments payable at whatever annuity rates offered at the time of conversion by the issuing life company. A Canadian broker attending the NSSTA conference stated that at least one Canadian life company already offers this structured settlement product feature. The Committee anticipates whichever annuity provider introduces this product feature in the U.S. will probably also seek an IRS private letter ruling.

Goodman also addressed the state of the structured settlement industry including a "factoring update". As part of this report, Goodman confirmed that NSSTA and the National Association of Settlement Purchasers (NASP) have agreed to cooperate legislatively in several states to seek the following consumer protection amendments for state structured settlement protection statutes:

No forum shopping.

Payee required to attend hearing.

Stricter application of approval requirements.

Advanced notice of transfer.

Required disclosure of prior transfers.

Supporting this cooperative initiative, NSSTA has begun offering its members a new Judicial Education Training Seminar - taught in Phoenix by John McCulloch and Stephen Harris. Goodman also announced he will be a featured speaker at NASP's 2015 Annual Conference next week in Las Vegas - the first serving NSSTA President to do so. Perhaps anticipating his NASP appearance, and cognizant of the recent Washington Post article ("a perfect storm for factoring"), Goodman advised the NSSTA Conference attendees: "Factoring is not a zero sum game. What is bad for them is not always good for us."

Additional Conference Presentations

Many structured settlement participants believe control of the primary structured settlement market, and future market growth, have shifted from the defense to plaintiff attorneys and their injury victim clients. Although NSSTA has been slow to embrace plaintiff-focused personal injury settlement planning, NSSTA's Fall Conference included two presentation featuring plaintiff representatives:

An introduction to the National Association of Trial Lawyers Executives (NATLE) by Gayle Bennett, Deputy Director of the New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

Both plaintiff presentations emphasized opportunities to expand the market for structured attorney fees. Both plaintiff attorneys expressed a preference for advisors who are "knowledgeable not just about structured settlements but also other investment vehicles."

In addition to the Judicial Education Training session mentioned above, three other NSSTA presentations addressed educational issues and programs:

Best Practices for Structured Settlement Case Resolution - During her excellent review of structured settlement fundamentals, Betty Gregware expressed serious concern about the general quality of structured settlement documentation and the need to increase competence across the industry.

Professional Broker Education - Gregware, Melissa Price and Debbie Sink introduced a new educational program NSSTA is developing primarily for individuals who are new to the structured settlement industry. They also provided an administrative overview of "NSSTA University" whereby NSSTA partners with members to secure CE credits for member-sponsored educational seminars for insurance claims departments or law firms.

MSSC Paper Presentation - Mal Deener moderated a panel featuring Trish Fairhurst, Richard Carroll and other members of the first graduating class of NSSTA's new Masters Structured Settlement Consultant (MSSC) professional designation. Each MSSC graduate is required to submit a paper and these papers will be published on NSSTA's website. NSSTA will offer its next MSSC program beginning April 27, in conjunction with its Certified Structured Settlement Consultant (CSSC) program, at the University of Notre Dame

Separate from, but related to, NSSTA Growth Initiative, NSSTA's Board of Directors has appointed a Special Needs Attorney Task Force to develop strategic relationships with special needs attorney professional associations and to identify collaborative marketing opportunities with special needs attorneys more generally. NSSTA member Carola Davis and Special Needs Alliance attorney Patty Sitchler initiated a NSSTA presentation/discussion in Phoenix which hopefully will continue and expand to the benefit of both professional communities.

A critical factor, both challenge and opportunity, for growing the primary structured settlement market concerns succession planning. What new generation of distributors, or distribution channel(s), or business models, will emerge (and when) to replace and build upon the accomplishments of the pioneering generation (now in their 60s and 70s) who originated the structured settlement market in the late 1970s? NSSTA's Fall Conference featured two presentations addressing these issues:

Succession Planning - Presenter Jim Early looked at the succession issue primarily from the point of view of the individual producer. Among his observations: "nepotism works in the structured settlement industry" and "a lack of capital has prevented the primary market from bringing in and training new people."

Diversity Discussion - Angel Viera and Stacy McCall offered a convincing case for promoting greater diversity among new structured settlement professionals as a key component for future growth. Their presentation included and elicited several thought-provoking observations including: 1) "From a demographic perspective, our industry should mirror the people we serve" and 2) "Our industry suffers from a lack of diversity of thinking. Where do we find new voices and perspectives?"

Lifetime payments represent a valuable, optional structured settlement benefit which can be further enhanced from a pricing perspective when rated ages are applicable. Kevin Puckett and Ken Kiefer expounded on these important issues during their presentation about Mortality, Morbidity & Rated Ages.

NSSTA members Susan Clark and Robert Caples introduced Arnie Begler and Scott Henry, representing Pipitone Group, NSSTA's new public relations firm, and together they discussed NSSTA's Communications Program. Because journalists, as well as their readers, frequently confuse the primary and secondary structured settlement markets, Pipitone's "first test" was responding to the aforesaid Washington Post article. Pipitone's stated assignment is "to find the best communications practices and bring them to NSSTA" which will include designing a new NSSTA website. Among NSSTA's priorities, and Pipitone's challenges, will be attempting to reclaim the "structured settlement" brand inclusive of Google searches which currently are dominated by secondary market companies.

NSSTA Executive Director Eric Vaughn concluded NSSTA's Fall Conference with a Government Relations Update - his characteristically insightful and energizing overview of structured settlement legislative and regulatory activities. Among other accomplishments, Vaughn was recently named Vice Chairman of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).